To Gunny / Horror regarding recent events

This paste has a previous version, view the difference.Text below is selected. Please press Ctrl+C to copy to your clipboard. (⌘+C on Mac)

I figure I'd PM you since the chat was closed in the channel you were discussing this in. If it isn't apparent already, people aren't upset because twitch.tv/cygher's emoticons were removed, they're upset because of Horror's lack of professionalism - expressed or otherwise - regarding his actions. On multiple occasions, Horror has removed emoticons for copyright infringement while expressing that he doesn't know whether or not they are copyright. twitch.tv/cfox7 has emoticons removed for this reason, I haven't heard from him personally about his issues - but he had a banana emoticon removed because it was "copyright of Nintendo". twitch.tv/cirno_tv had a similar issue, when Horror came into his chat - while Cirno was streaming - and began questioning him if his Touhou-based emoticons were copyright; Horror clearly hadn't done any research on the copyright before questioning a streamer live about his emoticons - otherwise he would have known that Zun, the creator of Touhou, is vocal about not caring about copyright on his characters. Emoticons being removed isn't the only issue, Horror has also exercised double standards in allowing and disallowing emoticons and icons on certain channels. Ignoring the copyright material on larger channels, Stivitybobo and Almolicious both have copyright material in the form of icons and subscriber emoticons - and from source material more well-known than that of other emoticons that have been removed - but haven't had any issue with it. It's a little strange to see such inconsistency with removing emoticons, with more minor copyrights being taken up as larger ones go unnoticed for long periods of time.

I have more evidence of Horror's inconsistent behavior regarding his job if you want it, I'm not going to compile it in this message for now.

However, the issue isn't about emotes as much as it is about Horror's behavior. A week or two ago, Horror added the emoticon NightLight, which was later revealed to be his Internet boyfriend's fursona. People were naturally curious about why a "furry" face was added as a global emote, especially when it came from twitch.tv/leo , a channel with 200 followers and no apparent notability outside of being a furry like Horror. When asked about the face, Horror responded with "Do I need a reason?" (se: his Twitter) as his reason for adding the emoticon, and responded similarly in a Twitch chat as a way of deflecting criticism, which made people frustrated with his behavior (http://i.imgur.com/JXah5Y7.png / http://i.imgur.com/UE0163J.png). People found out that the origin of NightLight was his boyfriend's fursona, which made coding it into the site as a global emoticon even more questionable. This is what caused me and others to comment on it; I made a comment about getting into Horror's pants to get a global emote (which was clearly a joke, I stand by that. I had no reason to believe that Horror was uncomfortable with people referring to his sexuality, as he has been quite open about it in Twitch chat before) and was IP banned for it. This caused the tension over Horror's repeated unprofessional behavior to boil over, and started the REMOVE HORROR spam. Werster was banned for talking about the issue in his stream (and saying that Horror was wrong to ban for a joke) while his stream chat spammed REMOVE HORROR, and Peaches was banned for his stream title before changing it. Both were banned AFTER they were done streaming, to avoid controversy.

The issue now is that it's being interpreted as bullying and harassment, when it's the result of criticism of the head administrator of the site being repeatedly ignored over the course of months; specifically, Horror coding his boyfriend's fursona into site as a global emoticon and then banning me for joking about it pushed things over the edge, and now people are directly taking out their frustration. It may be considered harassment, but the response has been completely illogical. The head administrator of the site personally IP banned a user for making a joke at his expense, two others were banned for reacting to the ban, coded his Internet boyfriend's fursona into the site as a global, ignored criticism or failed to respond to it legitimately, and is generally doing an awful job of representing the site.

I think it's shameful that this is being painted as a "witch hunt", when it's the result of ignoring repeated, legitimate criticism of someone who is clearly unqualified to act in the position of power with competence and responsibility.